Fraser Calderwood M.A.’s Post

Doing well at sitting down sports again? This was the message a Basketball friend working at the Paris Olympics for FIBA. He is right oat the time of writing we have 10 medals, six in sitting down sports and four in the water or standing up. He did argue that swimming is not exactly standing up either? I said just wait until the ones sitting down going backwards really start going! Is their a serious point here? We are excellent at a wide range of sports which have in the main a smaller worldwide appeal. Whereas in the sports that have 200 countries taking part we don’t seem to feature? The top four of Volleyball, Basketball, Football and Tennis we only have a pair in the tennis. Should we then be looking to find the really big sports differently to gain medals in the sport that have worldwide appeal? In speaking over the yeas to people form some of those sports it needs more than a four-year investment. For example Europe have four or five spots at the Olympic basketball tournament, Volleyball the same. With over 50 countries qualification is incredibly hard and would need as much as 12 years of support and a infrastructure the NGBs in GB have not seen before. So maybe our lottery money is best spent on success on a four year cycle with sports where aerobic capacity is the main component and changing speed is one of the only tactics? However, do these sports get to the communities who cant afford to get up early and don’t have financial or parental support? Lets celebrate every success as these athletes in all our sport make enormous sacrifices to achieve a dream which we are all jealous of. Come on GB. Sport Structures #olympics

Let this sporting debate begin. It is just as well that the Olympic games are on a four-year cycle because we simply couldn’t cope as a sporting nation. The highs, the lows, the near misses, and the expectations would be too much and there wouldn’t be a sod of turf turned in Mayo, a keg of Guinness brewed at St. James Gate, or a piece of crystal engraved in Waterford for a month. However, this Paris Olympiad may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back regarding future sports funding and ends the traditional allocation strategy which has seen vast sums going to the usual suspects with crumbs from the top table distributed amongst minority sports. As a nation, the debate on how we want to look to the rest of the world must take place sooner rather than later. The GAA in world terms makes little or no impression, our rugby team has become the butt of many a joke with our constant failure at the World Cup level and the glory days of our football team under Jack Charlton seem and are a distant memory with nothing not even hope on the horizon. Regarding the GAA specifically, the “national games” argument can no longer be relevant when looking at the bigger picture. Nobody can remember the last time our rugby team started with 15 players born in the 32 counties and the funding for the greatest league in the world is too little too late and won’t deliver results on the world stage for the foreseeable future. We are looking for leadership and of course that all too scarce commodity of common sense. We don’t have time to establish a working group to present proposals to the Government, our leaders must make decisions and change the pathway of sports funding which over the years has only brought joy to a couple of 100,000 people in Ireland every September and added to the feel-good factor that was already in place in and around St. Patrick’s weekend. What would facilitate this change quickly would be if the holy trinity of Irish sports agreed to substantial cuts in capital and coaching funding over the next few years and allowed the savings to go toward swimming, athletics, and boxing. A change in thinking at the Department of Education would also be beneficial in cementing a love of sport for the youth of the nation. A change in the physical education curriculum both at primary and post-primary levels would also be welcome. I can only hope that funding has already been found and manufacturers have been contacted about the cost and delivery timeframe in having a pommel horse in every school in Ireland before Christmas. This is a debate our nation must have and if the majority believe that nothing should change well at least you will have the comfort of knowing that your local greyhound track is never going to close.

Celebrating Sporting Triumphs: Balancing Fairness with Responsibility. When the Springboks clinched the 2023 Rugby World Cup, the nation erupted in joy and pride. A country-wide city tour, overly supported by government officials (in my opinion), and the declaration of a Presidential Public Holiday is testament to the tremendous achievement. However, this jubilant celebration naturally prompts the question: should the same level of recognition and support be extended to all National Teams or individual South African athletes who achieve similar world-class results? The Springboks' victory holds a special place in the hearts of South Africans, intertwined with a rich history of unity and resilience. It's not just about rugby; it's about a nation coming together. The same sentiments may apply to the Proteas National Cricket team, who are currently excelling in the Cricket World Cup. If they were to secure this title, it would be an achievement deserving of the same national recognition, Government support and celebration. Yet, the challenge lies in striking a balance. South Africa is a nation of diverse sporting passions, and it's not just about rugby, cricket or soccer. Smaller disciplines like golf, motorsport, swimming, and countless others are also sources of pride and inspiration. The question of fairness is pertinent - should they too be afforded similar public support and holidays? The economic impact of such public holidays and the collective time taken off work by the public to support these parades in an already strained economic environment cannot be ignored. Celebrations of this magnitude are resource-intensive, and in a nation grappling with economic challenges, careful consideration is required. Resources must be allocated judiciously, ensuring that celebrations do not strain the economy further. That said, the value of celebrating sporting achievements should not be underestimated. They instill national pride, inspire the youth, and foster a culture of excellence. The challenge is to strike a fair balance between recognising and celebrating achievements across different sports while being mindful of fiscal responsibility. In conclusion, South Africa faces the task of celebrating sporting triumphs without detracting from the absolute accomplishments of its athletes. While the scale and nature of celebrations may vary, the principle remains the same: to recognize and support the sporting excellence that unites the nation. Achieving this requires a delicate balance, one that acknowledges the unique significance of each sport while promoting inclusivity and fiscal responsibility. It's a challenge worth undertaking to ensure that all our sporting heroes receive the recognition and support they deserve.

How financially viable is a career in sport? How can Olympians and Paralympians be better supported? Here are my thoughts. #LinkedInNewsAustralia In my opinion, sports are the outcome of passion, and individuals who go on to represent Australia in the Olympics and Paralympics are very passionate about their sport. Naturally, financial viability is not prioritised; rather, representing the nation becomes the ultimate goal. It is very shocking to me that the Australian Sports Foundation revealed that 46% of Australia’s elite athletes over the age of 18 earn less than $23,000 per annum, and 42% of those aged 18 to 34 suffer poor mental health as a result. So how can we better support our sports starts? 1. Financial literacy should be introduced early in life so that they learn how to manage and plan their financial lives. 2. Access to financial advice should be prioritised, and associations and responsible entities should organise this. 3. Webinars and workshops around financial education should be planned well and scheduled in the calendar, just like the sports training schedule. Empowering our sports stars through knowledge and coaching will go a long way in addressing this pressing issue and improving their well-being. It is high time that we gave equal importance to the financial well-being and not just the mental and physical fitness of the sports stars.

I am a lifelong fan of tennis and I do not support the proposal by Saudi Arabia to take over the men's tour (ATP) and women's tour (WTA) for many reasons. I want to key in on one of those now. The management of tennis is not too impressive and it has not been for many, many years. It is going to sound strange to hear me state that the sport is in sorry straights following the effective end of the "Big 3 (plus Serena)" era. I am not concerned with the level of play. Perhaps it will not be at the same level we have seen from Roger, Rafa and Novak for most of the last 20 years, but the up-and-coming crop of players will serve the sport well for years to come. The tours and, specifically, the USTA are another matter entirely. It is my assertion that we would not be in a position where such a thing were necessary except for very poor strategic management over a very long period of time. When I took a break from tennis, the "1000/500/250" point system was just being implemented. Prior to that, my recollection is that the men's and women's tours were MUCH more centric to the US and Europe. That's where the sport got its start. It was where its stars were traditionally, historically from. Its where the tennis courts were. Its also where the CORPORATE MONEY was and still is. And, I'm sorry, but, yes, any two-bit, third world s#1+hole country with petroleum like Kazakhstan can fund holding a tournament there. But there are 32+ cities in the US that host a professional league team--most with more than two of those leagues represented--and the Fortune 2000 (think the Fortune 500 plus 1500 smaller versions in addition) eagerly willing to shell out massive funds in support of every sport under the sun. I'm not exactly certain where or when tennis forgot the benefit of a strong relationship with Wall Street. After all, the country club cousins on the GOLF course seem to have this lesson down pat! It doesn't seem entirely like our current problems trace to the sport's almost sociopathic fascination with diversity, although the two overlap. In the case of the US, we seem to have squandered the presence of corporate money at the same time that we completely prostrated ourselves to the gods of diversity. The two are nearly unrelated, but if there were any hope of overcoming the one despite the presence of the other, we seem to have successfully failed in the face of both quite magnificently. I'm sorry--not sorry!--but when most of the people who play your sport are white and you trip over yourselves attempting to raise up players from the "anything else" category, the proper term is "nutting yourself." Look it up. Had we had an even half-ass, discernible, national player development program in place over the last FIFTY YEARS, neither Roger nor Rafa nor Novak nor Serena would have in excess of 15 grand slam titles. Quote me on it. (continued)

What a summer of sports! With the Euro and Copa America football championships, followed by the Olympics – and still the Paralympics to go – it's been a special every-four-years treat. How incredible was it that the Olympics gold medal table came down to a referee’s call on a final play in the last game of the last day? Amazing. Go Team USA! A few things that stood out for me at the Olympics: Simone Biles: Her openness about mental health is as impressive as her athleticism. Making this topic less taboo is essential, especially for Gen Z. And her performances – how does she get so high? Truly outstanding. Rachael Gunn (aka Raygun): While her routine was distinct, maybe even odd, her courage was undeniable. Watching her performances reminded me of the pride I feel watching my kids perform on stage. It’s easy to criticize (online) but much harder to put yourself out there. Shelby McEwen: It took me a moment to empathize with his decision to go for solo gold over sharing it with Hamish Kerr. The gold could have made a difference in the Team USA gold count competition with China. But after reflecting, I get it. McEwen’s countless hours of preparation and sacrifice gave him the right to chart his own course. Women’s sports: The strength, spectacle and success of women’s sports continue to grow impressively. My wife and I may disagree on who should win the football, but we are in awe of how far the women’s sports has come in the last decade. Swimming: As a parent of varsity swimmers, watching Olympic-level swimming remains my favorite event. The Australians were, as always, super impressive, though I’m thrilled Team USA pipped them by one gold. Ledecky is out of this world, and Leon Marchand may eventually give Michael Phelps a run for his money. I couldn’t be more excited for the LA Olympics in 2028. Do you think the gold medal table will be as close? Historically, host countries tend to see a medal boost – well done, France! Will LA ‘28 come down to the last play again?

A question of sport: As the sun sets in the city of love, is now a good time to remind politicians and sport-loving public of Aotearoa New Zealand that there is currently no Commonwealth Games host confirmed for 2026 or 2030? Whoever steps up to host the next one, assuming that there is another one, should be able to negotiate the T&C's to ensure that they generate a positive Return on Investment (for a change). It doesn't have to be as big as those hosted in Australia, India or the United Kingdom (the hosts of the previous six editions). For a start, future hosts shouldn't have to pay a bidding fee, or the costs attached to putting a bid together. The host should get to decide when the event takes place, how many sports are played, which venues are used, and how many people will need feeding, watering and accommodating. It doesn't have to be in 2026. What about 2027, making it an LA2028 qualifying event? University halls of residence nearest to the different venues should be used for all the non-paying guests. The paying guests can find their own accommodation. Universities willing to support the event, which would need to be hosted in early February, would be rewarded with a lot of global media exposure, and opportunities to engage in research, volunteering, professional development and student placement supervision. Think win-win. Any of our existing stadia could be used to host the opening and closing ceremonies. For Track and Field, 30,000 temporary seats and a lot of TV cameras could be placed around an existing stadium, or potentially one of our biggest provincial Cricket grounds. This isn't innovative. It does ensure that no one is left with a white elephant (a stadium that sits empty and unloved once the event is over). Athletics NZ will know which is the best place for this part of the programme, just as Swimming NZ will know the best aquatic facilities to use and Bowls NZ will know the best Bowls lawn. Let them decide! If you minimise the hosting costs, the host will not need to sell hundreds of thousands of tickets to see ROI. If you can keep ticket prices down, the venues will sell out and you will get great atmosphere (where appropriate, you can also charge a premium price to the overseas sport tourists with deep pockets). Rule #1; the host does not let the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) or any elected Public Servant dictate how many athletes enter or how big our venues need to be to host spectators. The decision needs to be based on the resources already available, including financial and human. Rule #2; the event budget is based on the money the CGF is willing to spend on their biggest fundraising event, and not on the "potential" economic impact that "may" happen within the host city/country as a result of event legacy or leveraging. thoughts?

Five days until we get to start cheering for the amazing athletes on #TeamUSA and their peers from around the world! 👏👏👏 Working in concert with the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, the #Olympic National Governing Bodies (NGBs) play a critical role in developing and preparing the U.S. athletes for this moment, but not all NGBs have the same resources. Here is a quick side by side look at 2021 revenues for Summer NGBs ahead of a beautiful #Paris24 🇫🇷. As I shared in a similar post in 2019 between Rio and Tokyo, there will be a lot of talk about the “medal count” soon, but money is the lifeblood these nonprofits need to truly fulfill their mission. (Link to older post in comments if interested.) Looking beyond Paris from a commercial standpoint, the road to LA will be the most important four years for the Summer NGBs since the Atlanta 1996 quad. A domestic Olympics is game-changing. The 1984 LA Games changed the #Movement and #LA28 should be equally transformative for the whole of OP sport. If you don’t like how your favorite sport looks here, donate and/or give your time to the NGB(s) of your choice to help them ahead of a rare Summer Games. At the risk of sounding like a pharmaceutical ad with fifty percent legal VO, a few comments and caveats re: my methodology: • Revenue in millions. • Only includes Summer Olympic sports that were on the Tokyo programme. Not counting new French or LA additions like Breaking or Cricket. • Para is not accurately reflected. Some are managed by NGBs. Some USOPC. • Multiple NGBs have separate Foundations. Not including those 990s. • Used 990s from official NGB sites linked from TeamUSA.com. A few required a search of GuideStar or ProPublica. (Appreciate those NGBs who make this financial info easy to find. For those who bury this detail from constituents, please try to do better.) • Used 2021 data to reflect Games impact and as too many NGBs have not shared 2022 info yet. • Recognize some 990s use a fiscal year different from calendar year. Used 990 covering Games or before, whichever is larger. • Small NGBs use IOC sport three letter code with the smallest (Pentathlon, Handball, Badminton, Golf) down to two. • Total revenue is $841.2M. (For comparison, the Dallas Cowboys and The Ohio State University Department of Athletics generated an estimated $1B+, as in billion, and $251M+, respectively, during roughly the same period.) Welcome any insights or observations. 🤔⬇️

Sports Interest | 2014 versus 2024 Looking at the AMPS data from 10 years ago, the top 3 sports were soccer, rugby and cricket, with nearly 20-million people expressing interest in soccer. Rounding out the top 10 were dancing, boxing, netball, swimming, walking, billiards and tennis. Fast-forward ten years, the latest MAPS data now expands the 27-sporting options we had in the 2014 AMPS into 56 different sports, including airplane racing and four separate gym categories (pilates, spinning, weight training and aerobics). Read the full South africa today article here: https://lnkd.in/dVmPJVwi

The decision of World Athletics to give prize money for Olympic success is a fascinating development. Certainly, many of the athletes at the Games are no longer amateurs, many won’t deny the athletes deserve a greater share of the spoils, and I’m sure the debates about Olympic values are to come. However, I find the potential impacts and questions raised across the sporting ecosystem most intriguing. Pressure, surely now transfers to other world governing bodies to follow suit. It will be interesting to know if many have put such expenditure into their forecasts. Whilst sports are inevitably compared in various ways, outside of the Games, in their own systems and communities, they seem independent. Whereas at a Games there is much more of a sense of a single environment, a unique, single, world community. Therefore comparison is more likely and powerful.  If you are cycling or swimming, do you go higher, lower, match or try to push down the line? How will sports with limited medal chances react? Are they sighing in relief or seeing an opportunity? Is an arms race on the way? Can many afford one? In acting first athletics have also set the bar, there is now a direct value on Olympic success. Will this matter to the spectators? Will this impact the mystique of the Games, which is far from non-commercial, but maybe less so in the conscious of the casual ‘once every 4 years’ fan. Then there is the regrettable spectre of the doping cheat caught retrospectively, sometimes several years down the line. Presumably, they will now be required to hand over the cash alongside the medal. National support programmes are now commonplace. In future will they take account of possible prize pots in their funding programmes and decisions? Could the potential level of prize money be taken into account in athlete support packages and supporting systems… is it possible that in the end, some athletes may not see the prize money at all? Each time I reflect on this I find myself venturing down another avenue. It is big and the impacts will be interesting.