"From a grassroots basketball perspective, we want as many people playing our sport as possible." Well said!
The government builds a $40m sports centre. How many suburban basketball players will that help? How many suburban basketball teams are based within easy travel distance of that one centre? Very, very few. Why does the government think that a single, central sports stadium is any good to sport?
email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
Oh, of course: It's nothing to do with the large numbers of people who actually play sport...
Governments build large sports stadiums because it's easy and because it's visible. Take over one small area of land, spend a heap of money amongst the rich and influential building companies, wait for the publicity when the stadium is overflowing, during a large, international sports show.
Of course the stadium is effectively empty for the rest of the year.
And when it is full, it is overflowing with spectators. A large stadium, with occasional "big" events, is ideal for watching sport.
How many "state" basketball teams are there? One, I guess. Two, if you count the commercial team. How many "suburban" basketball teams are there? Dozens...
Peter Barrow is worried that teams, their families, volunteer helpers will be expected to pay more, for court hire, parking, admission to the venues.
Let's guess that there are 400 suburban basketball teams. Instead of $40m for one, central, limited-use basketball stadium, we could have given each suburban team $100,000 towards court hire, parking, admission to venues. Wow! There would probably be enough left over for uniforms! And equipment, and transport to games...
One central stadium supports, perhaps, a few dozen highly paid players. Plus their well-paid coaches, agents, trainers, hangers-on. Plus many thousands of people who, perhaps once a year, are willing to shift from in front of their TVs to in front of the hot-dog stand at a central basketball stadium.
400 suburban teams -- with government funding or without -- support at least 4,000 active, participating sports players. Plus a lot more unpaid or underpaid coaches, supporters, family, hangers-on.
Where will government money do the most good -- for active participation in sport, rather than for high-publicity vote-buying?
Put more money into suburban sports participation. It is cost-effective. And if the aim is to actually benefit sport -- investment in suburban participation is going to be very, very effective.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
No comments:
Post a Comment