Abstract
[Extract]
As the Winter Olympic Games wrap up for another four years, questions will be raised about the Australian team’s performance, the significance of winter sports in our sporting landscape, and the amount of taxpayer funding they receive.
The Winning Edge strategy was introduced in late 2012 as a way of allocating funding based on performance (especially international medals). After much controversy, the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) announced late last year it will no longer use the name Winning Edge; it has replaced it with values that promote sport success as influential on national pride and inspiration.
However, measuring the success of the Australian team in Pyeongchang – and the investment of A$16 million to support it – may still be aligned to the ambitious Winning Edge targets. The target was to finish in the top 15 on the medal table. So, how will the AIS measure the success (or otherwise) of Pyeongchang?
As the Winter Olympic Games wrap up for another four years, questions will be raised about the Australian team’s performance, the significance of winter sports in our sporting landscape, and the amount of taxpayer funding they receive.
The Winning Edge strategy was introduced in late 2012 as a way of allocating funding based on performance (especially international medals). After much controversy, the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) announced late last year it will no longer use the name Winning Edge; it has replaced it with values that promote sport success as influential on national pride and inspiration.
However, measuring the success of the Australian team in Pyeongchang – and the investment of A$16 million to support it – may still be aligned to the ambitious Winning Edge targets. The target was to finish in the top 15 on the medal table. So, how will the AIS measure the success (or otherwise) of Pyeongchang?
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | The Conversation |
| Publication status | Published - 26 Feb 2018 |