Should the Canadian Government Fund Olympic Athletes?
Every two years, Canadians gather around their television sets and experience two weeks of national pride as Canada’s top athletes compete for gold at the Olympic games. It is undoubtedly true that a solid performance at the Olympics brings a surge in national unity and esteem, but those gold medals come at a price to taxpayers. The question that must be considered is whether the social good derived from Canadian athletes performing well at international sporting events is worth what we, as a nation, spend on achieving that level of success. Those Canadians who support funding elite athletes point to several benefits that Canada receives from spending on Olympic gold medalists: increasing national pride and unity amongst a diverse population, demonstrating soft power to other nations, and creating a healthier society by inspiring more youngsters to participate in sport. However, these potential benefits are fleeting and, in some cases, illusory, making government subsidization of elite athletes a poor investment
There is no question that most Canadians feel immense pride when one of the athletes representing their country stands on the podium to receive a medal and the strains of “O Canada” are played at the Olympics. Such moments unify a country forged from diversity, which is undeniably a positive thing. The longevity of these positive feelings must be considered, however. Most of the gold medal winners of past Olympic games have faded into obscurity quite quickly after stepping off the podium. There are a small few who have become media darlings. Those few gain endorsements, book speaking engagements and have name recognition. The vast majority of medalist names are forgotten until the next Olympics, when they may have an additional opportunity to compete or a commentator pulls their names out of a record book. Given that the government pays for the elite athlete whether his or her name recognition and social impact last three years or three minutes, there may be better, more reliable ways to stir the ego of a nation with the funds currently used to develop gold medalists.
Likewise, the use of the Olympic medal count as a way to bolster soft power does not seem like the most efficient way to boost Canada’s esteem among other nations. Countries that do focus on developing top athletes as a way to signal international superiority are far larger in population like China, far richer like the USA, and far more willing to bend and break the rules in their pursuit of Olympic gold, like Russia. Canada is in a weak position to begin an Olympic arms race with any of these nations, no matter how much money is available for the purpose. Using Olympic athletes for this end, moreover, is unnecessary. Canada’s reputation worldwide has historically been positive enough that the nation should not need to compete for esteem at sporting events. Pursuing an agenda of peacekeeping, coalition building, and diplomacy is likely far more helpful in fostering Canadian soft power than any attempt to impress an international audience with Canadians’ athletic prowess.
Finally, the Olympic funding apologists will say that surely having gold medal athletes to admire and emulate encourages the Canadian population to participate in sports. This increase in participation would lead to healthier citizens, decreased health care costs, and improved social and physical wellbeing for many people. Additionally, having more people, particularly children, participate in Olympic sports would create a wider pool of talented athletes from which the country can draw future Olympians, thus creating a cycle of ever-increasing gold medalists for the nation.
If it were true that Olympic success can be shown to have spurred even a fraction of the nation into physical activity, spending government funds toward achieving gold would be a worthy investment. The truth, however, is that research has revealed there is no correlation between the success of elite athletes at the Olympic games and public participation in sports.
It is even possible that the national desire to develop excellent athletes is preventing more of the general population from participating in sports. Canadian participation in organized sports after the age of thirteen is decreasing. This decline is opposite of the effect that is hoped for by developing elite athletes, but a CBC Sports report found that most of those children dropping their sporting activities do so because they believe they are not good enough. The decline is, the report asserts, “a by-product, experts say, of the hyper-competitive environment that lords over most youth sports.”
Another problem is that while the funding provided by the government is concentrated on those athletes most likely to win medals at the games, there is insufficient funding available for many communities to offer their residents with facilities or instruction should they be interested in pursuing a sport. Increasingly, lower-income families are priced out of sports participation. The CBC reported in 2016 that six in ten low-income children were active in an organized athletic activity, a significantly lower percentage than was seen in well-off families. This economic disparity may be keeping Canada’s best future athletes from ever picking up a sport, much less excelling at one.
Basing sports funding solely on an athlete’s potential to medal appears to be a poor investment for Canada. However, moving government subsidies away from elite athletes and toward encouraging more non-elite sport participation may serve to both create the healthier population that the government desires, and form a larger pool of talented athletes that could find their way to an Olympic podium one day.
