$8 Million per medal ... $37 Million for gold

An interesting article quoting an Australian Study of Rugby from a while back:

"Successful high-performance programs don't lead to increased grassroots participation, contrary to the oft-asserted view, according to an Australian academic study.The finding is similar to evidence that public subsidies for American sports stadiums do not create jobs or other municipal economic benefits. The theory is plausible, but scholars are demonstrating it just doesn't work out that way."

(Editor's note:  The aussies must not have included Miller Park compared to old County Stadium in their study!)

     "In an analysis of the relationship between gross spending by Australia's equivalent of the US Olympic Committee and Olympic medals won over 1977-96, the Australian Institute of Sport was so efficient that it achieved a 'significant linear relationship', meaning incremental dollars led to more medals. The cost worked out to be $37 million per gold medal, or $8 million per medal."

"Neither spending nor performance, however, had any bearing on mass participation. 'It is time to revisit the notion that elite sporting success leads to greater mass participation as a result of the so-called "trickle-down" effect', the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport article summarizes."

Anecdotally, we sometimes think we see a different effect.  Doesn't it seem that more kids sign up for and try gymnastics or other Olympic sports shortly after the broadcast of the games?   Maybe they don't stick with it or maybe not that many kids really do try Olympic sports just because it's on TV.  We at WGR would love to see some more research on this, especially from the American sporting public.