The Curious Case of NZ Football

Remember back around the Olympics how there was the controversy about the Wellington Phoenix's decision not to release Shane Smeltz and Tony Lochhead to the NZ Under-21 team? If not, here's a refresher course.

Also, there was the whole thing about Football NZ receiving a funding boost from SPARC following their improved performance last year.

I've done a little researching and found out that the Wellington Phoenix do not and can not receive funding from Football NZ. The reason why? They're an Australian team. This is due to the structure of the Hyundai A-League, which requires clubs and their players to be registered in Australia in order to compete. Which is understandable, because if they were a New Zealand team in an Australian competition it would lead to all kinds of arguments from anybody who wished to enter about 'well why can't we' etc, whereas this way the administrators can turn around and say 'well hey, we had a spare license and they had the best offer at the time'.

There are two things that don't make sense though. Firstly, the way this arrangement works makes the Phoenix ineligible for any of that SPARC money. Which means they're paying for these players out of their own pocket. I don't think most NZ Football punters understand this, which led to the unpatriotic calls around the Smeltz-Lochhead saga. I'm sure if the Phoenix had come out and made that clear, then the situation would have remained a lot calmer. Because who can blame them for trying to get their money's worth?

Secondly, just why did the Men's Footballers receive such a big boost? I had assumed it was as a result of the Phoenix's performance, but if they aren't a SPARC team this can't be the case. They did well last year to almost lock up a World Cup berth, but can't that also be attributed to the Phoenix and the fact that most of the players in the All Whites are now getting regular game time with the same coach?

Note: Congrats to both the Men's and Women's teams, they did spectacularly last season.

More

It's an early Christmas Present

I arrived at work today to have an invite sitting in my inbox.

A very, very special sort of invite.

Our work had a contract with SPARC earlier this year to monitor the media coverage of their Olympic athletes, with the information being compiled to track positive/negative coverage, as well as when an athlete was mentioned for quantitative measures.

As the resident sports-nut, I was delegated the role of tracking the television coverage of the Olympics [I may have been hired with this in mind, it appears to be a subject of conjecture]. This literally meant I was being paid to watch 8 hours of Olympics coverage - It wasn't all like that though, it had been recorded from the night before and I had to get through it in 2 hours.

Anyway, our report to SPARC has been completed and will be presented on Friday... And I was invited... Can't wait!

More

Join the dots

Lion Nathan's attempts to take over Coca-Cola Amatil come to light on the same day as SPARC make these statements following comments by National's sports spokesman on an apparent review of the rules regarding alcohol advertising in sport. [Last couple of paragraphs]

As a side note, I finally found National's sports policy the other day, in a press release dated Nov 03. Odd that it doesn't actually appear on the policy page though.

More

Sporting Politics

You may remember a rant I had about National's criticism of SPARC. Well, Murray McCully was on Morning Sport today and first I must go off track to two things.



1. This is the first interview I have ever heard on Radio Sport where the compere has actually let rip into the interviewee.
2. McCully is one smooth operator.

McCully refused to be drawn on his party's sport policy, but said it will be released soon. He said it will mirror John Key's speech earlier in the year, which was damning of SPARC.

McCully also criticised the SPARC programs aimed at young children [something which has been repeated by many National MP's] and it seems the party will remove this obligation on SPARC and direct they to direct ALL their funding at high performance atheles. Which I think is illogical [How do you get athletes to be great without funding them earlier in their career?]. I have my own personal beliefs on the SPARC programs, but am interested to hear those of others.

Current Minister of Sport and Recreation and Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove will appear on Morning Sport tomorrow to discuss the same issue.

As a side note, I am trying to get Back Benches host Wallace Chapman to have a show on the subject of sport. If it is successful, I hope to see you there.

More

Don't Vote for National

Now, although the title is deceiving, I don't want to stir up anything.
I think sport and parliament should be as far removed as possible, bar funding.
But this seems to have been forgotten. By this, for those too lazy to click the link, I'm talking about National leader John Key's speech on sport at a lunch. I'd like to draw attention specifically to this:



"Take Sport and Recreation New Zealand (Sparc). This is the government agency charged with promoting physical activity and supporting elite athletes. Last year, Sparc had 86 full-time staff. Fourteen of those staff were paid more than $150,000 a year, while 47 of them earned more than $100,000 a year.

You would hope those staff were busy putting funds directly into regional sports trusts, clubs, and national sporting bodies. But no, almost a third of the money Sparc receives - $35 million in fact – never makes it outside the Wellington office....

An incoming National Government will have a look at all these programmes, regardless of which portfolio technically funds them, to ensure we get the balance right between funding promotional programmes and telling people to lead healthier lifestyles, and funding actual sports organisations with actual facilities at which sport is actually being played.

It's clear that with a firm sense of priorities, and a disciplined approach to taxpayer funds, National will be able to free up meaningful additional funding for schools and sports clubs. "

That's a very longwinded quote (but then again, it's a political speech) but what Key is saying without saying anything is that he wants to pull SPARC funding and shovel it into education. I have nothing against education, but what I have an issue with is that SPARC seems to be perceived as operating solely as an elite sport body. While it is true that SPARC operates for elite athletes, it also focuses on schools. In fact, if it wasn't for SPARC and the Kiwi Kids holiday program (the actual name escapes me) I would have only stuck with cricket and football, without experiencing any other sport.

It is my personal belief that where SPARC does not perform is in the middle sector. The majority of funding goes to world class atheletes and children, but the high-school and university age athletes have to seek sponsorship or have their school foot the bill (as I have personally experienced).

Now, neither party has released a policy on sport (a point which was noted by a caller, Graham, on BSport yesterday) but we know Labour has a strong commitment to sport (what with there being a Minister for the Rugby World Cup - I don't neccessarily agree with this, but nevertheless) while National appears committed to cutting sport funding... To fund tax cuts perhaps?

As I said, don't take this to be influencing your vote. I just want to draw attention to an overlooked issue.

What are your thoughts? Should sport be governed independently or should the Government have full control? Should SPARC be funded by the Government or seek money from the private sector?

More

Will she be white, bro?

In case you missed it, Richard Boock wrote an article on racism in sport in yesterdays Sunday Star Times. BSport had a discussion on the subject, with Lonergan furious at what he percieves as a lack of representation on the board of SPARC and various other sporting bodies.

Now, I agree with Lonergan's points, but do we really need a quota of Polynesian/Maori people on sporting bodies? What is to says that Va'aiga Tuigamala [Lonergan's expert on the subject] is going to be any more representative of the group than somebody from a European-Kiwi background?

Let's not forget that this is New Zealand, where businesses and organisations are bound to stick to certain roles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

As to Boock's belief that there is a racist culture who believes that 'blacks' cannot play in pivotal roles in New Zealand, WHAT?

Mils Muliaina? Ma'a Nonu? Jesse Ryder? Michael Campbell? Piri Weepu?

Those who argue that the lack of Polynesian/Maori's at top level Hockey, Cricket, Athletics etc, I'd suggest you look at American sport. I was having a discussion on the subject with my flatmate who hails from Boston not so long ago. What he was saying was that the reason there are not many black quarterbacks or kickers is to do with the upbringing of these children, not the coaching structure.

What Ben was saying was that the majority of African-American's involved in NFL originally started on a path toward professional basketball. It seems that due to the way the American structure works, these kids get into NCAA Basketball, but get poached by football coaches shortly afterward as the athletic skills required by wide receivers and safety's are similar to those required by basketballers. Ben claims that this is now a career path that kids in the States actively pursue.

On top of that, he said that the kids from the ghetto areas are more likely to go after basketball as they know someone who has 'made it', can participate with friends and... The costs are low, with a ball the only equipment neccessary.

Well, while New Zealand isn't a parallel of that, I think that the 'minor' sports miss out on that Polynesian/Maori experience due to a lack of funding and exposure. When is the last time you heard of a New Zealand Hockey player being sent to Europe for a year to develop their skills? Or how about an NZ football signing a $2m contract?

More