this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
188 points (97.5% liked)

Australia

3520 readers
137 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone
dalekerrigan@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
188
Almost half of Australia's elite athletes 'earn below the poverty line' (www.sbs.com.au)
submitted 1 year ago by Mountaineer@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It makes sense. Throwing a 5kg ball or swimming real fast on your back isn't exactly of value to anyone.

If athletes want more money and are participants in sports that have low interest, they have to first ask where the hell they think that money will come from. I have a friend that competes in long jump on an international level and is also an athletics ambassador. There's no viewership, merchandise, public hype, etc. so there's no income. Dude just holds a good engineering job. Similarly one in triathlon, which he does have some decent prize money and sponsorship as there is much more interest and viewership, but he still works a full-time job and he has to be absolute top of the field to get any reward.

You can't make the public watch things they don't want to. And no one wants to pay for something they're not interested in or want.

[–] otl@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You can't make the public watch things they don't want to. And no one wants to pay for something they're not interested in or want.

It's frustrating that this was never mentioned in the article. It was never covered why income is what it is.

This article is reporting on a survey run by the the so-called Australian Sports Foundation. From their own financial report:

The objective of the Sports Foundation is to raise money for the development of sport in Australia.

So it's an unsurprising conclusion. If there was a similar foundation, also pulling in $47 million per annum, for a similar activity people do out of passion rather than necessity such as... I dunno... "Australian Spoon Tapping Foundation"? That foundation's CEO would probably be more than happy to give a soundbite for the media. But elite spoon tappers don't have a foundation nor do they really identify as spoon tappers.

There is an interesting story here, though. I think some people assume that elite athletes equals mega dollars. But that is not the case. An interesting article that actually informs and entertains the public could:

  1. report on the average income of elite athletes
  2. give an insight on what most elite athlete's lives are really like; how they survive earning less than $23K/year.
  3. explain why their income is low

Instead what we've got here is a headline implicitly stirring up feelings of injustice, some comments from some CEO, some nothing numbers with no context, and finally an actual comment from an actual athlete (right at the bottom of the article?!).

[–] b000urns@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I've always considered the pursuit of sport to be something for the elite, much like art, fashion, design, writing etc. You need significant financial support for a long time to really make it fields such as that. Now that may be a generalisation, but it's mostly true I think

[–] Hillock@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

It's not really a good comparison. Most of the fields you spoke off people can make a decent living off even without reaching the top.

But the people they talk about in the article already made it to the top. And they still can't make a living.

More public funding would be the only option. But that's hard to sell, many people don't think it's a worthwhile usage of funding. And it's also very hard to measure the impact this kind of funding actually has. So it's difficult to argue in favor of it. If the overall living situation of people would be better, I don't think people would argue against it.

And there are plenty of other fields and industries that receive public funding (directly or indirectly) that deserve it even less.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's actually the opposite: sport is often the only realistic path out of systemic poverty for young people.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It doesn't seem that realistic if you need to perform in the top 1% among all your poverty stricken competitors. There's a finite number of places for successful athletes.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Especially when the people with financial resources will usually have a better chance of making it for one reason or another.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Of course, but it is a career path where a young person's socioeconomic and cultural background is less likely to affect their chances of earning a wage that can take them and their families out of poverty.

I think some of you have a very privileged view of life. Go listen to footballers from Brazil talk about their experiences, for example. Or if you want something closer to home, listen to Indigenous AFL players talk about the opportunity sport provided them and their families.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're missing my point I think.

Sure, a not insignificant number of sports stars have a background that's considered lower class, but the number of people living below that poverty line that will become sports stars is so low I'm not even sure how many zeros go between 0.[...]1%

Even if all of those people were top class athletes, there's only room in the sports world for a few hundred of them at most.

It's not a realistic career path, it's a lottery that requires high level athletic skill.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I understand your point - it's not like you are offering a particularly deep insight here.

The problem is that you are taking my original comment too literally. I am not arguing that it is a realistic career path in terms of overall success rates. I am saying that, relative to many other career paths in which these people face massive systemic and social roadblocks, sport is the only realistic option to escape poverty.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I see, my apologies.

I thought you were trying to say it was a realistic way for them to escape poverty when you said it was the only realistic way to escape poverty.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

But again - it’s the 1% that made it there. Only ~450 players are in the NRL. Many of them earn the minimum allowed of 100k still, and their careers average like 3 years. That’s the 1%.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

sport is often the only realistic path out of systemic poverty for young people.

The number of people that can make a living from sport is miniscule. It's not a realistic path to strive for. You've got almost as much chance of winning the lottery.

[–] FunkyMonk@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

Poverty is just so hot right now it's catching on everywhere.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

I don't think this is limited to Australia.

[–] iByteABit@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I don't agree with people here not caring about this. Why should anyone earn below the poverty line?

If producing value is what gives you the right to live, then why do managers and manager's managers get so highly paid? Does that also mean that artists shouldn't get to live either unless they're doing graphic art for a company?

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are right, but also this comes with the territory of doing what many people like to to and many would even do for free.

It's the same with many other types of jobs that people do not strictly only for the money.

Art is the same. People form bands and release music for fun, hence those who want to earn money there are undercut by those who just do it for fun. Only a few top artists can utilize massive economies of scale to actually make a decent living.

Game developers are the software developers who earn the least, by far. Because everyone would prefer making a cool game over writing some b2b web app.

[–] aeternum@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

I'm on welfare (disability). I earn well below the poverty line.

[–] smollittlefrog@lemdro.id 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Why don't I get paid for professionally posting on Lemmy? Why don't I get paid for professionally sitting on my couch?

Just because you're doing something doesn't mean you should be paid for it.

Athletes aren't paid very little because of being oppressed. They are paid very little because of their work being of very little (if any) worth.

[–] iByteABit@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That can be extended to anything that isn't practical or useful, what I'm saying isn't that you should be paid for sitting on your couch specifically, what I'm saying is that you should have enough money to cover your needs even if your job is creating very abstract art, being a professional swimmer, or an artificial one like managing a manager.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

You want a universal basic income then. I also want that to happen, as it will allow more people to chase their dream career while being able to afford to live.

[–] PizzasDontWearCapes@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Who is responsible for providing for people who choose not to contribute?

I'm not working away all day when I could be persuing a hobby and still getting paid just so someone else can persue a hobby and get paid

[–] iByteABit@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm not talking about luxuries or even a comfortable life, I just think that everyone should have enough to live under a roof and have enough to eat healthy every day.

[–] DirigibleProtein@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Then get a proper job

[–] root@aussie.zone -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would think being an elite athlete is way beyond just a hobby.

Running a few laps around the field every day, yes a hobby. Being faster or able to run farther than 95% of the Australian population, that's way beyond hobby levels.

[–] PizzasDontWearCapes@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

These are activities that only exist for the sake of the participants and are not financially self-sufficient

They may be super intense hobbies, but if they aren't jobs or charitable services, they are still hobbies

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

They earn below the poverty line because they’re not generally working full time jobs because they’re chasing their sporting dream full time.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

TBH I don't really care. I don't think "elite athletes" should be getting any government funded pay. Playing sport is a privilege, not a right, and just because you're good at it doesn't mean you should be rich.

If your sport can't afford to pay you lots of money there's a reason for that - the sport doesn't generate a lot of money. It's the same argument with women's sports - they want equal pay but they don't bring in equal revenue, so where exactly is that equal pay supposed to come from? You can't play a female soccer player $30 million a year when the entire league only brings in $10 million revenue in total.

[–] Lord_Logjam 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is a difference between being rich and being above the poverty line.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 11 points 1 year ago

The biggest challenges were costs and financial insecurity, with elite athletes spending more each year on travel and accommodation for competitions than they did on food.

Athletes living below the poverty line have to pay for their travel and accommodation, while our politicians earning up to $600,000 a year get everything for free. Then they piggyback off the success of these athletes and use them to boost their own public image, whilst also failing to provide adequate funding to support the future success of these athletes and the generations to follow. Good shit.

[–] Goatsgotohell666@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If a country wants to prioritise doing well in the international sports scene, then that country needs to prioritise paying promising athletes to basically train full time to reach their maximum potential. If that country wants this. When the Olympics comes around if a country holds its worth and sense of national pride in being a great sporting nation and bases this on how many gold medals it wins, then it needs to ensure all its competing athletes have their full potential reached. Even stress from working a second job can lower performance. So while there are field adjacent careers these athletes could have like personal trainer, motivational speakers, worrying about income could impact their performance. Yes this does mean priveliged countries that focus and pay for their athletes have a better chance.

[–] root@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

Definitely agree with what you said. The problem is finding the funds to support the athletes. Not all countries have the means to do so.

[–] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Food $200

Data $150

Rent $800

Triple-jumping $3,600

Utility $150

someone who is good at the economy please help me budget this. my family is dying

Yeah, sorry, that's glib of me, but I don't think it's unfair to say that in terms of victims of capitalism, athletes are a fair way down the list.

[–] DirigibleProtein@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

Champion swimmer Bronte Campbell said the biggest costs she racked up through her career were injury-related, and while injury support was brilliant when it was there, costs soon started to outweigh the support she received.

How is swimming or any other athletic activity a career?

I don’t want my taxes paying for frivolous non-careers. The cleaner and the secretary in my office earn similar amounts, and they’re actually contributing to society. The bloke down the road with his model trains also finds that the costs outweigh the support he receives. I don’t understand how they can seriously complain that they’re not being paid enough to pursue their hobby.

He also encouraged athletes to look for other revenue streams.

Yeah, no shit. I need another job to pay for my hobby too, where’s the problem?

[–] rouxdoo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I've always wondered - how does a "professional amateur athlete" manage to earn a living? I've always assumed that they have parents of means that subsidize their passion to allow them to pursue their goals.

As an American I can not conceive of a career path that does not immediately provide fruit for labor - yes, I know this is a stunted view point but it is what I have. I would love to know of another way of following my passions without a viable means of support.

I know that I could absolutely crush a lot of my bucket-list goals if I didn't have to earn along the way.

[–] aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The comments in here are just sad. Can really tell that the Reddit refugee/Lemmy demographic has never played sports, or were probably bad at them, and thus hold bitterness towards athletes.

It's like the inverse of the popular kids at school moaning about nerds because they failed their math exam lol.

[–] PizzasDontWearCapes@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't see bitterness in the comments, just the realization that the general population doesn't see value in subsidizing elite athletics

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 2 points 1 year ago

We’re a pretty select bunch of the general public…

[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I'm just of the opinion that if something gives out money people are more incentivised to cheat for it, so things people do for fun like sports and vim macro text editing speed competitions (on arch btw) should not be monetized

supporting what those people do (sports: insurance, equipment cost, etc) is fine, if it's something that's needed

[–] jungekatz@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thats the same in india except make it like 80pc ! If they win a medal they are given a better paying job !

[–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

as long as they keep their mouths shut about sexual harassmnt from their sports head who also is a politician of the ruling political party, else all bets are off.

Context : medal -winning women wrestlers have accused the Head of India's Wrestling body of sexual harassment. The way in which the govt and the law has dealt with it shows how India views its athletes and its women.