|
It’s never favourable spending time on the ‘other side’ of the white line, however after having spent the majority of season 2009 rehabbing from an ACL reconstruction, I have been able to appreciate the external influences imperative to the smooth functioning of our sport.
I know personally, football has always been a hobby. Juggling on the field was continually accompanied by a more difficult juggling act with my studies, while holding a job and at the same time attempting to maintain sanity by reacquainting myself with family and friends. However, this scenario is not unfamiliar in the womens game, and the novelty of being paid to play was, for a long time, merely a futuristic thought.
The aftermath of the Matildas’ quarterfinals performance at the 2007 FIFA Womens World Cup was similar to that of the Socceroos. Australian female footballers were put on the international map. Our footballing capabilities were shown to be competitive amongst the world’s best, envied by vanquished opponents, and warranting respect and caution from those nations who’ve dominated the sport in previous years.
With success came greater interest in the game. With interest came sponsorships, and with sponsorship the formation of the Westfield W-League became viable, a much sought after national competition essential for establishing world class players. Just as exciting, is the reality of not being required to pay to play.
It is therefore with disconcertion that I read about the Governments review of the $130.9m funding allocated towards elite athlete programs. Discerning in that at the same time that Britain is committing £9.4m of new money to elite athletes, Australia is looking to axe its current spending. Like we’ve witnessed with the GFC, smaller businesses are hardest hit. Cutting funding will see but a few professional sports such as Cricket, Rugby and Aussie Rules, with resources to train world standard athletes, survive.
Maybe it’s time we considered an alternative funding stream for elite sport in Australia, similar to the lottery funding system in the UK or the transfer of TV funds in France.
What can be concluded is that other considerations must first be reviewed. Especially if the future of the Matildas, and the 384,000 female participants in the game be the bright and financially feasible one we dared envisage post our World Cup success.
Part of the message from the latest report is that focus should turn to the grassroots. It’s hard to argue against that, but it’s also important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
|
Comments