this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
182 points (97.4% liked)
Australia
3622 readers
190 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
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:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @[email protected] 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:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
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: @[email protected] and @[email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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.
It's actually the opposite: sport is often the only realistic path out of systemic poverty for young people.
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.
Especially when the people with financial resources will usually have a better chance of making it for one reason or another.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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.