By John Considine
On Saturday, a proportion of the population of Ireland will cast their votes in an effort to determine the next government. The public funding of sport is unlikely to be a deciding factor in the minds of the voters. Are voters swayed by the promise of sports funding? Do voters reward politicians who deliver sports funding? A previous minister with responsibility for sport asked the same question after the 2016 election. The Mayo News reported his comments as follows.
"When you look at some of the places I allocated money lately - like in Aughleam where I gave half a million euros for a hall, I got beaten two-to-one there [Ring got 91 votes while Sinn Fein's Rose Conway-Walsh got 191 votes]. In Mulranny, very substantial funding was provided to revitalise the whole area, and I got 42 votes [Jerry Cowley got 15 votes], so you have to wonder, do the people want delivery? I don't know," stated Minister Ring.
It could be a case of 'eaten bread is soon forgotten'.
"When you look at some of the places I allocated money lately - like in Aughleam where I gave half a million euros for a hall, I got beaten two-to-one there [Ring got 91 votes while Sinn Fein's Rose Conway-Walsh got 191 votes]. In Mulranny, very substantial funding was provided to revitalise the whole area, and I got 42 votes [Jerry Cowley got 15 votes], so you have to wonder, do the people want delivery? I don't know," stated Minister Ring.
It could be a case of 'eaten bread is soon forgotten'.
Earlier this week, the public funding of sport did make some headlines, e.g. an excellent piece by Kieran Shannon can be accessed here. The Board of Basketball Ireland issued a statement outlining how they believe their sport was treated unequally when compared with the recent treatment of the Football Association of Ireland. Towards the end of their two-page statement they draw attention to some of the benefits of basketball. They could have added that the Economic and Social Research Institute found a statistically significant relationship between academic results and basketball (as illustrated in the extract opposite from Keeping Them in the Game and as explained in a previous blog post). Hockey and Hurling are the other two sports showing statistical significance with academic results (look for the ** in the table).
It might be stretching things to say that basketball delivered for government, just as Michael Ring delivered for Mayo. Basketball Ireland might wonder why the government seems to impose greater penalties on their sport.
When it comes to sports funding and the election, the prize for the most striking billboard goes to one seeking to reduce the public funding of the Greyhound Industry (the top half of the image on the left). This funding has come under sustained attack since the National Broadcaster aired a Prime Time Investigates episode devoted to the industry (it can be viewed here). The billboard explicitly seeks the removal of funding. It is difficult to tell whether it will have an electoral impact.
In my opinion, it is the repeated use of the funding as a benchmark that is likely to have a longer-term impact. For example, a couple of months ago in the Dail (Parliament), a comparison was made between the public funding of the greyhound industry and the funding provided for the victims of sexual violence. Ruth Coppinger said "Your government gave 25 million to the entire support sector, yet you saw fit to give 17 million to a cruel and ailing greyhound industry". The outgoing Taoiseach (Prime Minister) responded by highlighting the increase in funding for victims of sexual violence. He could only limit the damage done by the comparison. Regardless of the outcome of the election, some incoming Ministers will find themselves explaining funding in the context of the money going to the greyhound industry. These comparisons, rather Saturday's vote, are likely to have a bigger impact.
In my opinion, it is the repeated use of the funding as a benchmark that is likely to have a longer-term impact. For example, a couple of months ago in the Dail (Parliament), a comparison was made between the public funding of the greyhound industry and the funding provided for the victims of sexual violence. Ruth Coppinger said "Your government gave 25 million to the entire support sector, yet you saw fit to give 17 million to a cruel and ailing greyhound industry". The outgoing Taoiseach (Prime Minister) responded by highlighting the increase in funding for victims of sexual violence. He could only limit the damage done by the comparison. Regardless of the outcome of the election, some incoming Ministers will find themselves explaining funding in the context of the money going to the greyhound industry. These comparisons, rather Saturday's vote, are likely to have a bigger impact.
RSS Feed