High Performance Sport – funding decision

This week’s decision of the Employment Relations Authority, finding that the Government agency High Performance Sport New Zealand, is obligated to engage in good-faith collective bargaining with the newly-formed Athletes Cooperative, which represents around 60 elite athletes (mostly rowers and cyclists) – is a welcomed start to what I expect will be a lengthy journey. 

The decision itself involves some of the more complicated outer reaches of employment law in circumstances where HPSNZ does not have a formal employment relationship with athletes.  As a result, I do not propose to comment on the technicalities.  That is best left to the experts, such as the very experienced employment lawyers who represented the parties.

However, as a parent of a couple of athletes in ‘the system’ and therefore someone with more than just a passing interest in the outcome of the journey, I share the concerns of many other sporting parents about the design and implementation of the funding model for athletes.  From where I sit, there are aspects of the model that seem uncertain (and at times unfair) with, seemingly, constant changes and a high level of uncertainty. 

Self-evidently, the application of the model is key factor in the matrix of things affecting athlete welfare and, therefore, performance. 

These concerns are not new and have surfaced previously – such as in the 2022 inquiry in relation to Cycling New Zealand. 

Some of the issues have manifested themselves as a result of the current pressures on the cost of living – because the model often results in low levels of funding to individual athletes.  And they are not confined to New Zealand.  A report at the end of last year noted that Australia risks losing elite athletes before the 2032 Brisbane Olympics unless philanthropic funding can help fill a funding shortfall.  There it seems that, but for the intervention of an Australian billionaire to top-up some of the most high-profile Australian swimmers, they too would be suffering from the same cost-of-living pressures that are causing athlete wellbeing concerns for elite athletes in Australia.

The next stages of the journey are likely to be complicated.  And in a period when all Government agencies are facing cost and spending pressures.  The example provided by Australia, in a much bigger, apparently wealthier, environment points to the difficulties. 

But, with all of the risks and regards of being a sporting parent, sponsor, gear fetcher and carrier etc, as well as a sports tragic – I would like to think that there are enough good people on both sides of this discussion to continue working on solutions for the best interests of all concerned.  And I have some confidence that they are [all] aware that, without a working solution, the system risks undermining one of the key parts of the fabric of our society.