London calling: Australia and the 2012 Olympic Games

Did our Olympians let us down in London, as the media seems to be suggesting? Or are we proud of their sporting spirit and whole-hearted participation? Daryl Adair says we need to reflect sensibly on what is realistic and stop obsessing about gold.

Before the start of the London Olympics, I noted that there was ‘anxiety’ that the Australian Olympic team may not return with as many medals as previous Games.

During week one, as the swimmers did not make quite the expected splash, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth – most notably from the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) and the media. How could the team be (mis)placed at around 20 on the medal tally? In week two, though, the blood pressure was lowered after gold medals in sailing, canoeing, hurdles and cycling, this lifting the mood of AOC officials and broadcasters.

What might be sensibly said about the ebbs and flows of this performance anxiety? And what of the suggested remedies by the AOC?

To begin, it is useful to reflect upon the rather myopic way in which medal tallies are constructed and obsessed over. Although the ‘value’ of particular medals can be interpreted in different ways, the usual convention is to arrange team hierarchy in respect of gold medals, irrespective of the volume of silver and bronze. Even the Olympic web site features medal tables that mirror this approach. What has emerged from this ‘gold fever’ pressure is rhetoric that world-class performances – notably silver and bronze – are tantamount to national disappointment. Is that how we ought to view the Australian result at London?

Over the past twenty years the Australian Olympic team performance has been strong and steady – particularly for a nation ranked 52 in global population: 1992 (10th), 1996 (7th), 2000 (4th), 2004 (4th), 2008 (6th), and London (10th). Indeed, the most recent result is hardly cause for embarrassment. Australia’s total number of 35 medals was, for example, higher than Korea (5th place and a total of 28 medals), France (7th place and a total of 33 medals), Italy (8th place and a total of 28 medals), and Hungary (9th place and a total of 17 medals). But the allure of gold as the barometer of success means that countries with an abundance of silver and bronze, such as Australia (10th place and 35 medals) and Japan (11th place and 38 medals), have appeared to perform rather modestly.

Before the London Olympics, John Coates, the AOC President, declared that Australia ought to expect a top five finish in terms of the raw medal tally. At the completion of the Games, Coates, while disappointed in a rank of 10th, was upbeat about the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro: “Our objective again will be top five. The Australian Olympic Committee hasn’t lost the hunger." Whether or not one accepts this as a rational proposition, a key question is how Coates anticipates its realisation. Two points seem critical to his vision of a gilt-edged Olympic future for Australia.

First, Coates has demanded greater urgency about Olympic sport as a matter of public policy. He complained, for example, that (increased) government funding of Olympic programs had been “slow” out of the blocks for London. Meanwhile, Australia’s most senior IOC official, Kevan Gosper, blamed the government commissioned review, “The Future of Sport in Australia”, led by David Crawford. It recommended, among other things, a greater emphasis on public funds to encourage active community engagement. For many Olympic sports, this presented a problem, since they have a small number of participants. Gosper said that the “Crawford review had ‘set us [the Olympic Movement] back substantially’ in the race for gold” at London. Moreover, he argued, in the wake of the 2012 performance, even more government funding would be needed for Australia to compete effectively at the next Olympics.

Second, during the London Games Coates contended that a key part of the solution to Australia’s medal slide was ensuring that more young people played sport (and by this the inference is Olympic sports), and that schools are the best place to ensure this. Richard Hinds has described this as a jaw-dropping back flip in that “the Crawford Report into government sports funding … strongly advocated the restoration of physical education in schools”.

In a similar rebuke, Bonita Mersiades asserted that Coates made “the right call” but for the “wrong reasons”. She argued that the teaching of sport and movement skills to children ought not be predicated on acting as a nursery for aspiring Olympians. Instead, she averred: “Physical activity is one of the key factors that contribute to long term better health outcomes through a reduction in the incidence of chronic disease, and … [such] health promotion strategies also have a positive impact on educational and social outcomes.”

In the wake of the London 2012 Games, there will be protracted debate about the nature of public policy in respect of Olympic sports and high performance expectations, as well as the purpose of community sport in Australian society. Funding will be part of these discussions.

The AOC itself has come under scrutiny. Brisbane’s Courier-Mail recently reported that John Coates earns $482,040 as AOC President, which is $1000 more than the Australian Prime Minister is paid. The paper also noted that the Australian Team Chief Operating Officer, Craig Phillips earns $420,778. The AOC argues that its executives earn less than the leading professional sports in Australia. However, organisations like the AFL, NRL, ARU, Cricket Australia, and the AJC are in the business of generating commercial revenue to sustain their operations.

The AOC is not bereft of funds owing to its investment arm the Australian Olympic Foundation (approximately $106m at the end of 2011), the bulk of which was cleverly acquired by Coates from SOCOG in the lead up to the 2000 Games. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Australia’s Olympic sports have modest returns from sponsorship, hardly anything from broadcasting, and so rely inordinately on government funding (via the Australian Sports Commission) in order to function.

In terms of the raw medal tally, the Australian Olympic team finished the London Games with 35 medals and a ‘position’ of 10th on a hierarchical table that privileges gold medals as the measure of success. This obsession with first place is a rather narrow way of gauging performance, particularly given that silver and bronze medallists are also feted on the podium.

However, the most important point is to reflect sensibly on what is realistic, in a performance sense, for a nation of 22 million people. Australia has a proud Olympic history and a bright future if it can be accepted with good grace that an outcome of 10 on the medal tally is indeed creditable.

Dr Daryl Adair is Associate Professor of Sport Management at UTS Business School. He has taught at The Flinders University of South Australia (Adelaide), De Montfort University (Leicester), The University of Queensland (Brisbane), and the University of Canberra (ACT) before joining the School of Leisure, Sport and Tourism in July 2007. Daryl is on the editorial board of the academic journals Sporting Traditions, Sport in Society, Performance Enhancement and Health, and the Journal of Sport History.